Principal Investigator(s):Hirschel, J. David, et al., University of North Carolina at Charlotte

Summary:

This study is a replication and extension of an experiment
conducted in Minneapolis (MINNEAPOLIS INTERVENTION PROJECT, 1986-1987
[ICPSR 9808]) to test the efficacy of three types of police response
to spouse abuse. Three experimental treatments were employed: (1)
advising and possibly separating the couple, (2) issuing a citation
(an order to appear in court to answer specific charges) to the
offender, and (3) arresting the offender. The main focus of the
project concerned whether arrest ... (more info)

This study is a replication and extension of an experiment
conducted in Minneapolis (MINNEAPOLIS INTERVENTION PROJECT, 1986-1987
[ICPSR 9808]) to test the efficacy of three types of police response
to spouse abuse. Three experimental treatments were employed: (1)
advising and possibly separating the couple, (2) issuing a citation
(an order to appear in court to answer specific charges) to the
offender, and (3) arresting the offender. The main focus of the
project concerned whether arrest is the most effective law enforcement
response for deterring recidivism of spouse abusers. Cases were
randomly assigned to one of the three treatments and were followed for
at least six months to determine whether recidivism occurred. Measures
of recidivism were obtained through official police records and victim
interviews. Cases that met the following eligibility guidelines were
included in the project: (1) a call involving a misdemeanor offense
committed by a male offender aged 18 or over against a female victim
aged 18 or over who were spouses, (2) ex-spouses, (3) cohabitants, or
(4) ex-cohabitants. Also, both suspect and victim had to be present
when officers arrived at the scene. Victims were interviewed
twice. The first interview occurred shortly after the "presenting
incident," the incident that initiated a call for police assistance.
This initial interview focused on episodes of abuse that occurred
between the time of the presenting incident and the day of the initial
interview. In particular, detailed data were gathered on the nature of
physical violence directed against the victim, the history of the
victim's marital and cohabitating relationships, the nature of the
presenting incident prior to the arrival of the police, the actual
actions taken by the police at the scene, post-incident separations
and reunions of the victim and the offender, recidivism since the
presenting incident, the victim's previous abuse history, alcohol and
drug use of both the victim and the offender, and the victim's
help-seeking actions. Questions were asked regarding whether the
offender had threatened to hurt the victim, actually hurt or tried to
hurt the victim, threatened to hurt any member of the family, actually
hurt or tried to hurt any member of the family, threatened to damage
property, or actually damaged any property. In addition, criminal
histories and arrest data for the six-month period subsequent to the
presenting incident were collected for offenders. A follow-up
interview was conducted approximately six months after the presenting
incident and focused primarily on recidivism since the initial
interview. Arrest recidivism was defined as any arrest for any
subsequent offense by the same offender against the same victim
committed within six months of the presenting incident. Victims were
asked to estimate how often each type of victimization had occurred
and to answer more detailed questions on the first and most recent
incidents of victimization.

Access to these data is restricted. Users interested in obtaining these data must complete a Restricted Data Use Agreement, specify the reasons for the request, and obtain IRB approval or notice of exemption for their research.

Universe:
Calls for assistance received by the Charlotte, North
Carolina, Police Department from August 1987 through June 1989
regarding domestic disturbances that met predefined eligibility
requirements.

Data Types:
survey data, and event/transaction data

Methodology

Study Purpose:
This study of police response to spouse abuse in
Charlotte was initiated in response to a National Institute of Justice
request for proposals to replicate and extend a spouse assault study
conducted in Minneapolis. In the Charlotte project, the efficacy of
three types of police response to spouse abuse was tested: (1)
advising and possibly separating the couple, (2) issuing a citation to
the offender, and (3) arresting the offender. The main focus of the
project concerned whether arrest is the most effective law enforcement
response for deterring spouse abusers from committing subsequent acts
of abuse. Cases that met the following eligibility guidelines were
included in the project: a call involving a misdemeanor offense
committed by a male offender aged 18 or over against a female victim
aged 18 or over who were spouses, ex-spouses, cohabitants, or
ex-cohabitants. The cases were followed for at least six months to
determine whether recidivism occurred. Arrest recidivism was defined
as any arrest for any subsequent offense by the same offender against
the same victim committed within six months of the "presenting
incident," the incident which initiated a call for police assistance.
The results of this research are intended to help police departments
determine their policies for dealing with incidents of spouse abuse.

Study Design:
The study involved the entire Charlotte Police
Department and operated 24 hours a day in the city during the period
August 1987 through June 1989. When officers responded to a call for
assistance regarding a domestic disturbance, they determined whether
the case met all of the eligibility criteria. If so, the officers
radioed the dispatcher for one of the three treatment codes, which was
randomly assigned by computer. The officers then carried out the
mandated treatment code unless something occurred that prevented them
from doing so. A total of 686 eligible calls for assistance were
received. All ineligible cases were explained in writing. Under some
circumstances an otherwise eligible case was excluded, such as if a
victim insisted the offender be arrested, if the offender threatened
or assaulted an officer, or if an officer believed the offender posed
imminent danger to the victim. Within a few days after the officers
carried out the assigned responses, research staff sent a letter to
the victim requesting an interview. If the victim did not respond to
the first letter, she received a second letter, follow-up phone
calls, and follow-up home visits. Special care was taken to minimize
the likelihood of the offender's intercepting the letter and becoming
aware of the researchers' purposes. Follow-up interviews with victims
were conducted approximately six months later. Measures of recidivism
were obtained through official police records and victim interviews.

Sample:
The sample consisted of victims of spouse abuse, as
defined by the researchers, which occurred in Charlotte, North
Carolina, between August 1987 and June 1989. Randomized treatments
were assigned to 686 eligible police calls for assistance. Of these,
the researchers identified 646 victims whom they attempted to
interview. Initial and follow-up interviews were completed with 419
and 324 victims, respectively. Offender criminal histories were
obtained from official police records for a total of 650 different
offenders who were involved in the 686 eligible calls for police
assistance included in the study. Of the cases for which a citation or
arrest was the response, citations were issued in 181 cases, and
arrests were made in 271 cases. Records were unavailable in nine
cases, making a total of 443 cases for which court records were
obtained (court records were not applicable to the cases that received
counseling/separation treatment).

Mode of Data Collection:
face-to-face interview,
record abstracts

Description of Variables:
The initial interview with the victims focused on
episodes of abuse which occurred between the time of the presenting
incident and the day of the initial interview. In particular, detailed
data were gathered on the nature of physical violence directed against
the victim, the history of the victim's marital and cohabitating
relationships, the nature of the presenting incident prior to the
arrival of the police, the actual actions taken by the police at the
scene, post-incident separations and reunions of the victim and the
offender, recidivism since the presenting incident, the victim's
previous abuse history, alcohol and drug use of both the victim and
the offender, and the victim's help-seeking actions. The follow-up
interview focused primarily upon recidivism since the initial
interview. Victims were asked to estimate how often each type of
victimization had occurred and to answer more detailed questions on
the first and most recent incidents of victimization. In both of these
interviews, victims were asked questions regarding the nature of the
abusive incidents. More specifically, each victim was asked about six
types of victimization, whether the offender had threatened to hurt
her, actually hurt or tried to hurt her, threatened to hurt any member
of the family, actually hurt or tried to hurt any member of the
family, threatened to damage property, or actually damaged any
property. For each offender, data were collected on arrests relating
to offenses against the original victim. Criminal history information
concentrated on acts occurring during the six months subsequent to the
presenting incident. Some information was collected on criminal
background prior to the presenting incident, such as number of arrests
and number of arrests for violent crimes. For offenders who received
citations or were arrested, data were collected from court records
regarding the disposition of their cases, including charges, type of
release, disposition of case, sentencing, and fines.

Response Rates:
During the study period, 686 eligible calls for
assistance were received. Of these, 419 (61 percent) resulted in
completed initial interviews. Follow-up interviews were conducted with
324 (77 percent) of the respondents who completed the initial
interview.

Presence of Common Scales:
The Conflict Tactic Scale is included in the victim
interview questionnaire.

Extent of Processing: ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of
disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major
statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to
these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection:

Performed consistency checks.

Standardized missing values.

Performed recodes and/or calculated derived variables.

Version(s)

Original ICPSR Release:1993-12-18

Version History:

2006-07-13 All parts were moved to restricted
access. Parts 3 and 4 were updated to add SAS transport (XPORT) files,
SPSS portable files, and Stata setup and system files. The variable
count for Part 3 was corrected.

2006-01-12 All files were removed from dataset 13
and flagged as study-level files, so that they will accompany all
downloads.

2006-01-12 All files were removed from dataset 12
and flagged as study-level files, so that they will accompany all
downloads.

2006-01-12 All files were removed from dataset 6
and flagged as study-level files, so that they will accompany all
downloads.

2005-11-04 On 2005-03-14 new files were added to
one or more datasets. These files included additional setup files as
well as one or more of the following: SAS program, SAS transport, SPSS
portable, and Stata system files. The metadata record was revised
2005-11-04 to reflect these additions.